It would be hard to argue that Olympic athletes are not among the most highly trained people in the world.
The original Olympic Games included tests of military skill and, back then, there was little difference
between hurling a javelin in an arena or hurling a spear on the battlefield.

For much of history, firearms training consisted strictly of teaching marksmanship - a crucial skill both
on the range and in combat much beyond arm's length. In the 1930's an awareness developed that the effective
use of a handgun in a fight differed significantly from traditional bullseye target shooting. That resulted in
an ongoing series of efforts, primarily in the law-enforcement sector, to make training more street-relevant.
(Similar efforts would eventually make their way into military rifle training.)

Efforts in the law-enforcement sector were initially as varied as the use of surprise targets inside a
shooting house, as used by Fairbairn and Sykes - and subsequently by
the OSS and US Army Military Intelligence, in WWII - and the highly formalized Practical Pistol Course
promulgated by the FBI. In recent years, technology has led to the use of interactive video simulators and
force-on-force training - either with weapons specially modified to fire marking cartridges or, at lower cost,
with Airsoft weapons, which fire plastic pellets.

The Practical Pistol Course (PPC) led to the development of a style of handgun competition, generally restricted
to law enforcement, which persists to this day and which culminates annually in the NRA's National Police Shooting
Championships. It is more varied than traditional bullseye competition but it still basically a marksmanship
game.

In a 1785 letter to his nephew, Thomas Jefferson said, in part, "As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun."
There is nothing wrong with shooting as a sport. However, if your interest in firearms is self-defense, it behooves
you to recognize the difference not only between shooting for sport and, as Fairbairn and Sykes titled their book,
Shooting to Live, but also to recognize when training for the latter is polluted with "range mentality."

Street vs. Games

In October 1992, I took the five-day Pistol Course at the now-defunct Chapman Academy of Practical Shooting. It
did not take long for me to figure out that the "Practical Shooting" part referred to the sport of that name. One
afternoon was spent on "barricade" shooting. I was criticized at one point for allowing part of my foot to stray
over the "lateral fault line" but was ignored when I pointed out that the technique we were taught - resting the
back of the support hand on the side of the barricade, to help shoot a smaller group - actually resulted in about
60% of the rest of the body being exposed beyond the edge of the presumed cover.

Beyond that, if you were shooting around the corner of a building, "crowding the cover" in that manner would put
you at risk of being hit by a bullet that "skipped" off the side wall. Unlike light, where the angle of incidence
equals the angle of reflection, bullets tend to skip off hard surfaces at very close to six-degree angles regardless
of the narrow angle at which they strike it. Thus, when circumstances allow, it's best to stay about six feet
behind the cover. In like fashion, it makes poor sense to go to a kneeling or prone position voluntarily in a real
gunfight, unless it is behind cover, because a shot pushed or jerked low could then skip into your vital organs,
rather than striking you in the shin or ankle.

One of the staples of the "combat" shooting sports is the "double tap," where two quick shots are placed on each
target, before the next target is engaged. This works great in a timed competition because one can place a total of
six shots on three targets faster this way than placing one shot on each target, then repeating, on the assumption
that each target remains a viable threat. The only problem, as one cop in Texas learned as his last lesson on
earth several years ago, is that the extra fractions of seconds spent on the second shot on the first two targets
may leave the third target just enough time to shoot you.

Double taps are just one of the many erroneous tactics generated in response to using a timer in these shooting
sports. Another example is reloading on the run between two pieces of cover. Yes, doing this shortens your time,
which means a better score, but why would you want to leave cover with a gun that is empty or less than fully
charged? If you should get shot in the leg, keeping you from reaching the next piece of cover, wouldn't you rather
have the maximum number of rounds in the gun before you were forced to reload in that very vulnerable position?

There are other examples I could cite but the point I'm seeking to make here is that a high rating in one of these
shooting sports does not mean that your instructor will teach you sound tactics for the street. I'm not aware of
any of these sports where, absent a ricochet off a steel target or target frame, the targets shoot back.

Range Mentality

Even instructors with the best intentions of training you for real combat are often guilty of "range mentality."
This will generally fall into one of three categories. One category is teaching things certain ways because it is
perceived to be safer that way, particularly when training numerous students at a time. Another is a manifestation
of the observation by Abraham Maslow, "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a
nail." In other words, if this is a shooting class, we will assume that every threat is best countered by shooting.
A third is the attitude that if it is not practical to create the scenario on the range, we don't need to worry about
it happening on the street.

Some examples from the first category:

Placing the non-gun hand on the belly to initiate the draw stroke: When you've got a line of students drawing to
fire two-handed, this reduces the likelihood of the muzzle crossing the support hand as the gun clears the holster
and starts forward. It also conditions the student to draw his hand back from where he may need it to deflect an
attack, aim a flashlight or some other crucial task in a real fight.

Not disengaging the safety until the support hand has met the gun hand: Again, in drills where students are to fire
from a two-handed position, so long as they have pistols with some type of safety lever, this reduces the risk of
a student shooting his non-gun hand. What happens on the street when a student trained in this manner must fire
from a one-handed protected-gun or "retention" position, right out of the holster? I once had such a student who
could not figure out why his pistol would not fire for that very reason.

Going to "low ready" and scanning left and right after firing the assigned number of shots: Giving the student the
sense that he is maintaining awareness of his environment, while standing on the exact spot from which he has just
fired keeps him from crossing his classmates with the muzzle and from bumping into them. However, it makes more
sense on the street to "shoot and scoot," rather than remaining where the person who drew your fire - and possibly
his unseen partners - know you are standing.

Learning to shoot on the move, straight forward and straight backward: Moving forward or backward, perpendicular to
the firing line, on a straight line to your target, is relatively safe for a whole line of students. However, it has
very limited tactical application. On the street you will generally need to be moving off the assailant's line of
attack, which will typically involve varying degrees of lateral movement. That's a lot harder for groups of students
to do simultaneously and safely.

A good example from the second category:

Position sul: Sul is Portuguese for "south" and this technique, when executed correctly, points the
muzzle "south," toward the ground, on a line that runs between the feet. It allows the student to move safely around
the range in any direction, without the muzzle crossing his classmates, instructor or his own feet.

Sul is a slick range technique as you basically fold into it from the currently popular thumbs-forward,
two-handed grip of the pistol, then unfold back to the shooting position, as needed. The problem is that it traps a
perfectly good hand - that might otherwise fend off an arm's length assailant, operate a flashlight, open a door, etc.
- behind the gun. Anyone who carries a gun as part of his livelihood ought to be able to hit reliably one-handed at
least out to four yards. It makes more street sense to place the gun in the same position in a one-handed grip and
leave the other hand free for other tasks that may arise.

More recently, I have learned of one school that is teaching what I would regard as a reverse sul. In this
version, which I only know of second hand, the support hand is "folded" over the gun when it is pressed against
the torso. When I inquired as to the reason for doing that, I was told that it is to keep the gun partially concealed
while moving. Even photographic targets don't have working eyes but I'm not sure whom this will fool on the street.
(See my remarks below on "trademark techniques.")

Perhaps the best example of the third category is the use of stationary, two dimensional targets:

Most range training is conducted with stationary targets, promoting the illusion that an assailant will stand
planted somewhere around seven yards from you while he gives you the legal justification to use deadly force,
along with the time to draw, assume your normal two-handed grip and press off a shot or two while you similarly
remain planted in the same spot.

Even the occasional outdoor range that is set up for a moving target will typically use one that moves across the
range at a constant speed. Occasionally, on an indoor range, an instructor will use the machinery that runs the
target back and forth to simulate a charging assailant but, again, in a predictable straight line.

Then there is the issue of the targets themselves. The traditional black silhouette B-27 target is larger than
most men, faces you squarely and places the highest value for a shot to the stomach, not the most effective organ
for producing quick incapacitation. Some schools use the buff-colored cardboard silhouettes from the
action-shooting sports. These may be closer to average size and have their scoring zones better situated but they
have little resemblance to members of your own species, against whom you will most likely have some innate reluctance
to use deadly force. Some of these issues may be ameliorated with full-color photographic targets, which are
available in a wide variety of poses and scenarios. Among other things, these more realistic targets may help
desensitize you to shooting another human.

A final issue with these two-dimensional targets is that one needs to imagine them as three-dimensional and analyze
which organs a bullet would actually reach, if fired from different angles. For example, if one wishes to place the
bullet in the vicinity of the upper chambers of the heart, the entry hole on the printed photograph would need to
shift laterally as the shooter moves laterally, assuming that the training regimen incorporates lateral movement.
Three-dimensional targets are available, at much greater cost but they typically only duplicate the upper torso.

Force-on-force training and interactive video simulators overcome many of these problems but they are not
typically available on a routine basis. Long story short, don't take the instructor at his word - use your
own common sense and ask yourself if what you are being taught would work if someone
were charging you, yelling that he's going to rip your head off, or if he actually had a real firearm with which
to shoot back.

Don't forget that if an instructor tells you that it is not safe for you to practice something on the
range, it's probably not safe for you to do it on the street. He either needs to figure out how to do it
safely on the range or he needs to teach you an alternative technique that is safe to do on the street. And
don't forget that safety on the street includes the probability that you will prevail in the encounter that
you cannot avoid.

Context, Context, Context

An online friend of many years - who himself has an extensive background in military special operations - mentioned a
concept that he'd been taught by a well respected instructor: Make sure that the first threat is completely out of
action - even if it means emptying an entire magazine - before turning your attention to the next threat.

This ran counter to what I have been advocating and teaching - to place a round into each threat, then return to place
more rounds in any threat that remains active. I guessed correctly who the instructor had been - someone who'd be high
on my training agenda if I were planning on placing myself in harm's way, armed with an AR-type rifle or carbine.
I commented that I'd been surprised to see a video clip of one of that instructor's close-quarters drills in which he
had the student stand in one place, rapidly dumping several rounds into a single target. I'd have been training the
student to "get off the X," then shoot and scoot - shifting location as rapidly as possible, while still scoring hits.

My friend replied that the instructor's background was training some of the heaviest hitters in the US military and that
those guys often do entry work in which each has a designated lane of fire. For them, moving laterally would likely place
them in a teammate's line of fire and that they can normally rely on a teammate to address threats in another lane of
fire. I certainly grasped why the drill I had viewed made sense, in that context.

Realtors say that the three most important criteria are location, location and location. When you evaluate prospective
or past training, look at both techniques and tactics in context, context and context. Something that makes great sense
in the context of a highly trained team operation may not be a wise choice when you are operating on your own. By the
same token, something that makes sense for a sole operator may not be a wise choice when you operate in tandem with a
partner.

Trademark Techniques

For most of my teaching career, I quipped that the best way to make a small fortune in the firearms-training
industry is to start with a large one. It is not uncommon for instructors to find that this may not be the easiest
way to make a living and it's useful for an instructor to have a way to stand out from the competition.

One way to do that - at least until others copy you - is to teach stuff that no one else is teaching. These "special
techniques" can become the trademarks that distinguish you from the rest of the crowd. If they improve the skill of the
student, under realistic conditions, or result in better tactics, such distinction is warranted.

Be aware, however, that instructors tend to create range exercises that favor what they teach and that it is not
unknown for stories - of dubious veracity - to be told to show why the instructor's material is superior in the field
to that of his rivals. As I have said elsewhere, "common sense, don't leave home without it!"
When you wind down from each training session, debrief yourself and ask if what you were taught would serve you in a
real fight.

Stages of Training and "Evolutions"

As far as I can tell, it was Tom Aveni, while he was teaching at Smith & Wesson Academy, who crystallized the
concept of the three stages of firearms training. (These were later given a broader audience when Ralph Mroz
presented them in his book Defensive Shooting for Real-Life Encounters).

Grounding in the Basics: This is the fundamentals of marksmanship, such as position, sight alignment, sight
picture, trigger control and breathing.

Range Drills - Simple to Complex: This is the progression in complexity of range drills, including safe
movement, shooting from cover, shooting from different positions, shooting with the non-dominant hand, multiple
targets, etc.

Force on Force Scenarios: This involves students actually shooting at each other with non-lethal projectiles,
such as Simunitions or Airsoft pellets, to simulate the stress of real-life encounters.

More recently, it has been suggested that stage-three training may be more accurately viewed as testing than as
training. The thought here is that stages one and two teach and build skills and that stage three tests how they are
applied.

In his book Building a Better Gunfighter, Richard Fairburn breaks down the requisite skills into three "M
factors:

M1 - Marksmanship: This is basically what has been described as Stage 1, above.

M2 - Mechanics: This refers to all the aspects of operating the gun incidental to firing it.

M3 - Mindset: Fairburn quotes the late Jeff Cooper in summarizing this as "mental conditioning for combat."

The gist of Fairburn's solution to training gunfighters, as opposed to shooters, is to conduct the
training in "evolutions," a term I believe I first saw in an account of the training of the British Special Air
Service (SAS). Fairburn likens evolutions to levels on a circular staircase. Thus, each evolution in the program he
proposes runs through all three M's but does so at increasingly higher levels. It's worth noting that the program
originally included a fourth M - Movement - but that was integrated into each of the three other M's and is no
longer treated as a separate entity.

The circular staircase or sequence of evolutions incorporates the extremely useful concept of repetition but pushes
the envelope a bit farther with each one of them. Recognize that the program he outlines is conceived of in terms of
a police-academy setting. How does this apply to those seeking training on their own initiative?

First, recognize that you will not be adequately trained with a single one- or two-day course.

Second, recognize that, while there is always value in reviewing the basics and even in comparing how two or more
schools may teach them, you need to continue seeking training that pushes you beyond your current comfort level.

If you are not training to some agency's standards, you will need to set your own. Take a look at the descriptions
of Stage 2 and Stage 3 training. If all you do in a course is stand on a firing line and fire the designated number
of shots on command, even from a few different shooting positions, you are not really training to win a gunfight.

Another Point of View

Jim Cirillo considered competition to be an important part of training for a gunfighter - at least in part for
the acclimation of performing under stress. However, in his book Guns, Bullets, and Gunfights,
particularly in the chapter "Shooting for Score or Survival," Jim repeatedly cautioned about picking up bad tactical
habits from the practices and techniques of some of the competition disciplines.

Shifting back to my own thoughts, perhaps it is wisest for those who do enjoy competition to view it, much like
force-on-force training, as a test of skills already developed than as an actual training ground.

And Don't Forget Your Equipment...

In a similar manner, unrealistic range conditions may lead people to draw erroneous conclusions about the suitability
of their equipment for self-defense. To name but three examples I have seen among my own students:

While it is very popular in some quarters to suggest that a person is not likely to prevail in a gunfight if he has
not selected a handgun whose caliber begins with at least a "4," I have seen several students, comfortable shooting
such pistols at home, from conventional two-handed positions, experience difficulty in some of the one-handed drills
I have had them do, in preparation for a close-quarters engagement. (With modern bullet designs, there is little a
.40 S&W or .45 ACP bullet will do that cannot be done by a good 9mm hollowpoint.)

I recall one student who showed up, very proud of the fiber-optic "high visibility" sight he had recently installed on
his pistol. He shot fine during most of the day, when the sun was overhead. Things changed toward the end of the day,
as the sun started making its way toward the horizon. Most matches, which for many people is the most severe test of
their equipment, are held in broad daylight.

I once had a couple of students show up for a CWP course with just-purchased Fobus open-top holsters, the only option
available at the local gun shop. The younger, physically fit student had no problem completing the upright shooting
drills in that course. The older, short-waisted, pudgy student experienced tremendous difficulty drawing his gun from a
holster that is designed only to release the pistol at a very specific angle. I have to wonder if most users of such
holsters would be able to draw from them if they have been knocked to the ground or pushed up against a wall.

Material is posted on this page for information and discussion only and
purports to be no more than the personal opinion of
Stephen P. Wenger.

I make no effort to identify or track visitors to this site, by cookies or any other means. While I do not
knowingly share return addresses from e-mail generated from this site, such as to make comments or ask questions,
I cannot preclude monitoring by ISP's and government agencies. Similarly, I cannot resist seizure of my computer
by lawful subpoena or warrant. If correspondence from you would reveal indictable, illegal activity on your part,
I suggest that you reconsider such correspondence. I have no desire to abet such activity nor to become embroiled
in your prosecution.